Model 480 body profile?

[MarcD]

Hi
I'm in San Francisco CA and interested in doing a custom scratch build of a 480/4001 inspired six string guitar. I have assembled most of the parts I need, and am posting to ask about the 480 body shape and size.

Specifically, are the 480/481guitar body and headstock the same profile and dimensions as the 4000 series basses? I had imagined that the guitar would be smaller, but I have heard that they are the same. Any comment or info?

Are there any 480 owner/members in the San Francisco Bay Area interested in allowing an inspection of their guitars? I promise not to excessively salivate....

I suppose the logical thing to do would be just locate and buy a 480 or 481, but I REALLY want a guitar with triangle fret markers, checkered binding, throughneck and non-slanted frets.

Thanks in advance
Marc

[Grey]

From what I understand there have been subtle variations over the years in the precise shape and curvature of the horns, but from a strictly scale perspective, the bodes are the same. The neck is (obviously) shorter, and the headstock is longer. I believe the 480/481 headstock also has a sharper wave where the bass headstocks seem more rounded, but again this could just be a variation from the many years of production cycles.

Oh, the unbound 480 also has a beveled side, whereas the bass bodies are only beveled on the back. (far as I know)

Proofs:

[jingle_jangle]

Well, guys, although imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, in this case it's considered copyright infringement, and whether there is a profit motive or not is beside the point and a separate issue.

Please do a search of this site with appropriate keywords ("counterfeit" is a good one to start with), and you'll read chapter and verse about this issue.

I'm in the Bay area, but neither my 480 nor my 481 wishes to be cloned...

[jps]

From what I understand there have been subtle variations over the years in the precise shape and curvature of the horns, but from a strictly scale perspective, the bodes are the same.

That bodes well for them, then.

[wim]

but I REALLY want a guitar with triangle fret markers, checkered binding, throughneck and non-slanted frets.

A 660 might just be what you're looking for. It even looks a bit 4001-ish

[Grey]

A 620/660 is definatly the only other Ric guitar that comes close to the iconic bass shape, but theres a very big gap between the two, and the body is also much much smaller.

There's a Rickenbacker 480 neck only on ebay right now listed as a project piece, and the nice thing about the 480/481 being bolt-on is that you could swap the necks. So put an unslanted 480 neck in a 481 and you have your bound body. Send the neck to someone like Jingle_Jangle and have the neck refretted and refinished with triangle inalys, then get the whole guitar done in a custom BlueBurst finish. At that point it's customized but it's still a real Rickenbacker.

The idea that bolt-on neck guitars are inferior is snake oil, and there are people who would argue that the wood-on-wood contact of bolt on resonates better than wood-on-glue-on-wood of set necks and neck thrus. I can understand if you don't like it from an asthetic standpoint, I agree with you there and i'm already considering an idea for changing my 480.

Well, guys, although imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, in this case it's considered copyright infringement, and whether there is a profit motive or not is beside the point and a separate issue.

I hate to argue with you, but I don't think theres a problem in making a project guitar. There are a number of people who are actually selling Rick copies, I don't see an issue with one guy making it for himself.

[paologregorio]

I hate to argue with you, but I don't think theres a problem in making a project guitar. There are a number of people who are actually selling Rick copies, I don't see an issue with one guy making it for himself.

Oh, well, in that case, since you don't think it's a problem, that's different; call RIC sustomer service and ask them to email you a pdf file of 480 blueprints.

[jingle_jangle]

Well, guys, although imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, in this case it's considered copyright infringement, and whether there is a profit motive or not is beside the point and a separate issue.

I hate to argue with you, but I don't think theres a problem in making a project guitar. There are a number of people who are actually selling Rick copies, I don't see an issue with one guy making it for himself.

Then you need to use the SEARCH feature on this Forum, and pull up the DOZENS of debates and DOZENS of times this has been discussed here.

Of course there are manufacturers (mostly in China and Korea) making Rick copies--this doesn't mean they're legal to buy or sell. You may not see an issue, but you're obviously not familiar with the ins and outs of this topic.

Decades ago, Rickenbacker filed and was granted legal protection for a number of their guitar and bass' appearance features--so-called "trade dress"--and have enthusiastically and aggressively defended their designs against all comers. In fact, by law, RIC is required to take action against counterfeiters, or their exclusive use of the design features may be forfeited. (This is the basis of Fender's recent loss of their suit attempting to protect the designs of the Strat, Tele, and Jazz Bass, fully fifty years after these entered the marketplace and design vernacular. They simply had let too many people copy their designs for too many years, according to the courts.)

[jdogric12]

Well, guys, although imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, in this case it's considered copyright infringement, and whether there is a profit motive or not is beside the point and a separate issue.

I hate to argue with you, but I don't think theres a problem in making a project guitar. There are a number of people who are actually selling Rick copies, I don't see an issue with one guy making it for himself.

Cool, I'll be over later tonight to break into your house and steal stuff!

Yeah, sorry to be a ****, but it's illegal.

[Grey]

Cool, I'll be over later tonight to break into your house and steal stuff!

Yea, because that's definatly an adaquate comparison for someone scratch-building a guitar.

I still don't see a problem with it and I doubt I ever will regardless of wether it's legal, or not. I don't condone making copies to pass off as origionals or sell under false pretenses, but I see a distinction between doing an inspiried scratch build and some sweatshop in china turning out Lickenbackers. I fully understand that the law dosen't make that distinction, but i'm not going to slam what I think is a reasonable idea. Sorry if you don't like my opinion.

[jingle_jangle]

It's not a matter of liking or disliking your opinion.

The law exists to protect the time and money investments of those who create original artifacts or "content".

I'll bet you never did the search I mentioned, Eric. I'll also bet that you don't want to be educated on this matter, because you've got your mind set on your own interpretation. I don't think that the concept of stealing an idea (as opposed to somebody's new Corvette...) should be too hard to wrap your mind around, because they're both theft, according to the law.

I'm having a "here we go again" moment.

[bosco64]

You may say "Well, if I can create my own Rickenbacker guitar, I KNOW that it's a copy but it's MY guitar and I would NEVER sell it". That's all fine and good until the day you pass your guitar off to your son or another family member. They may not "cherish" the guitar like you did, and then they try and sell the guitar on eBay or Craigslist as a legitimate Rickenbacker guitar to an unsuspecting buyer thinking that it's the real deal. That's where we have a problem. As Paul W. suggests, take some time and search the archives about this subject, it's been brought up MANY times in the years I've around here. We're not trying to slam you, we just want you to be better informed, that's all. Stick around Spike, this is a really great place to hang out.

[Grey]

Actaully, I did briefly search, although it wasen't really necessary because i've been 'around the block' on this subject before in other forums such as the MLP where scratch-building is a popular topic. It's not that I don't understand, I simply don't agree. You don't seem to want to make a distinction between selling for a profit and building for personal use, and as I said, i'm fully aware the law makes no such distinction. I do, and I don't see a problem with it. That's all there is to it, you don't need to try and convince me since it's not something I was ever planning to do, and I really doubt OP plans to take any of what we've said here seriously, the fact of the matter is that he could make it if he felt like it and we'd likely never know unless he brought it up.

Also, I was working under the assumption that he wouldn't be putting 'Rickenbacker' on the headstock, for obvious reasons, making it kind of hard to get confused with a legitimate model. Or, rather, the fact that Rickenbacker has never made a guitar like he's describing would make it fairly easy to see that it's a custom job. (Yes yes, this is the part where you say "well you never know, they could make one like it eventually".)

He either will or he won't and that's all there is to it, I was never lobbying for him or saying it should be encouraged, I just see things a bit differently, and it's really not that big of a deal because i'm smart enough to recognize why people do have a problem with it.

[wim]

What the thread starter desires can easily be achieved by buying a 480 and installing all the features he wants.
I've seen 620 style basses, home made double necks (from 2 Rick guitars), 4 to 5 conversions, guitars re-bound with checker binding etc.. on this forum, yet that doesn't seem to be a problem (although RIC never produced such models).
With a 481 body and a 480 neck he'll go a long way already.
What is the legal approach to such conversions?
Or should he build just a new body for a 480 neck/hardware. What would that mean?

[jingle_jangle]

That's the fine line. Conversion vs. construction, I guess is how I would characterize it. Bear in mind, however, that once you get into removing or switching serial numbers, there be dragons.